Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #402953

Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro?

From	HGW <hw@....>
Newsgroups	sci.physics.relativity
Subject	Re: Why Do SR and BaTh Both Give the Right Answer for a Sagnac Ring Gyro?
Date	2016-12-25 18:29 +1100
Organization	Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID	<o3nshf$582$1@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink)
References	<o3la2k$kut$1@gioia.aioe.org> <4ead48f7-f281-4cdb-bc02-12316f993bab@googlegroups.com> <o3mpva$tu5$1@gioia.aioe.org> <f0cfbb33-b1f8-423d-b4d4-2704e6f6927f@googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw

On 25/12/16 09:37, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> On Saturday, December 24, 2016 at 3:39:58 PM UTC-6, HGW wrote:

>>> In the
>>> following diagram, I have straightened out a fiber optic gyroscope and mounted
>>> a straight section onto a board which I set swinging back and forth. A laser
>>> feeds light into the mounted section from both ends. The rays meet in the
>>> middle at a phase detector. Because of the absolute space that you unwittingly
>>> postulate, BaTh predicts that the central phase detector will detect fringe
>>> shift as the board swings back and forth.
>>> https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8XIf0XcrpOcN3kzQ0huZDdvUms
>>
>> It is nonsense. In the non-rotating frame, the two rays have different
>> path lengths. That has nothing to do with any 'absolute space' and if
>> you straighten it out, that what you have to draw.
>> On the other hand, Einstein's explanation clearly requires absolutism to
>> cause the two rays to move at different speeds relative to the common
>> source.
>
> As I have repeatedly noted, Henry: You simply do not understand BaTh to comment
> intelligently about it. Your BaTh is not one single consistent theory, but
> instead constitutes SEVERAL inconsistent imaginings with ad hoc elements tacked
> on or dropped as necessary to "explain" one or another phenomenon. On one
> occasion, you invoke extinction to explain lack of observation of variable light
> from known binaries; on other occasions you drop extinction. For Sagnac, you
> unknowingly invoke absolute space, which you promptly drop when faced with a
> demonstration that this assumption coupled with your other postulates would
> result in a sort of pseudo-relativity of pseudo-simultaneity in a linear version
> of Sagnac.
>
> You have little or no idea of what is going on, and BaTh is out of your control.

Gawd! Dono is right about you. You are proving to be the biggest idiot 
here...and that's pretty hard to achieve.

You obviously do not have the intelligence to even understand what I 
have said and are wingeing and whining purely for ideological reasons. 
BaTh's Sagnac analysis assumes only one thing, that light moves at c 
relative to its source. It uses the non-rotating frame, which is 
perfectly normal and valid.
By the time a particular photon reaches the detector, the latter has 
moved. Both rays take the same time to reach it but there are more 
(absolute) wavelengths in one than the other when the thing is rotating. 
How much simpler can one get?
If the rotating frame is used, as Roberts and Andersen attempt to do, 
they get completely stuffed up by the fact that there is an imaginary 
change in wavelength.

--

Thread

csiph-web